FREE WILL FROM THE GROUND UP

Humanism
61
Stephen, thanks for the link. I watched it this morning so had a chance to think about it, this evening I took up rewatching and transcribed interesting quotes, it did clarify what some of the talk is about, and gave me much to wrestle with and better understand my objections to this kind of talk - since my gals out of town, I wound up spending hours at it, now I'm too tired to explain anything but I'll be back. GdB - thank you likewise and that was helpful in understanding the notion, I'll be back. Lois - sorry, but you must be joking. I was asking about a philosophy not a science… I dare say that I am most certainly looking under the surface… Mind you I haven't defended anything I'm asking, listening, chewing on it and sharing my opinion… I reject "contra-causal freewill" but I'm not satisfied with this determinism thing because from what I've read so far, it ignores too much of what happens within our bodies and our lives. Incidentally here's how I read your comment:
This is the Truth. The truth doesn't need to have a purpose, {does that mean it doesn't need to be justified?} If I can't accept it, that's my problem.
That our choices are determined is a fact that has been proven many times over, most recently with brain scans, conducted scientifically and repeated, which show that we make decisions before we are aware if them. Meanwhile, there has never been one scientifically valid test that shows that humans have anythingbthat could be called free will. If you have heard of any, please let us know. In order for us to have free will we would have to be able to consciously supersede our determining factors. Since none of us is even aware of what our derermining factors might be, we can't possibly consciously supersede them, and there is no evidence that we could do so even if we could know what they are. Perhaps you could start your argument in favor of free will by describing the process by which our minds can supercede themselves. LL
62
Perhaps you could start your argument in favor of free will by describing the process by which our minds can supercede themselves.
Perhaps you could start your answers by first listening to what I'm asking/questioning.
63

The two things I’m sensing…
at the root of all that talk, and listening to Clark, I sensed some sub-conscious resentment that we can’t influence the past fueling this.
But, more than that I believe this perspective depends on a shallow appreciation of mind body interconnectedness,
beyond that the physical world/body/mind connectedness.
The body is not the shell around a biological thinking machine called the brain,
it is intimately interconnected and the body impacts the brain as much as visa versa.
Likewise with the person’s interactions with world it inhabits.
Unfortunately, my times up, got the shopkeeping gig get to - 4weeks down, two to go.

64
That our choices are determined is a fact that has been proven many times over, most recently with brain scans, conducted scientifically and repeated, which show that we make decisions before we are aware if them.
Until here OK.
Meanwhile, there has never been one scientifically valid test that shows that humans have anything that could be called free will.
Anything that could be called free will? OK: I call free will the capability to act according to your wishes and believes. Now tell me how the experiments that show that we are determined, also prove that these decisions were not according to the wishes and believes of the test persons.
In order for us to have free will we would have to be able to consciously supersede our determining factors. Since none of us is even aware of what our derermining factors might be, we can't possibly consciously supersede them, and there is no evidence that we could do so even if we could know what they are.
See you, you are cheating. First you say that these tests show that we are not free according to 'anything that could be called free will', but then you you say 'no, not anything, it must contain that you override your determining factors'.
Perhaps you could start your argument in favor of free will by describing the process by which our minds can supercede themselves.
Perhaps you could start your argument why my definition of free will is wrong. And maybe you could start answering my questions. I have answered the same questions of you over and over again, but you never answer mine. Here] you find some questions, and links to many more that you refused to answer. It is time you do, otherwise it is clear that you see that you cannot stick to your position. (Oh, yeah: "It’s a choice I’ve made and I will stick to it]". Very rational and nuanced argumentation).
65
Perhaps you could start your argument in favor of free will by describing the process by which our minds can supercede themselves.
Perhaps you could start your argument why my definition of free will is wrong. This may seem redundant to you, but please repeat your definition of free will. {I've got local things to deal with, so am taking an evening off from this, but I am interested in what you have to say.}
66
This may seem redundant to you, but please repeat your definition of free will.
Yeah, because it was already standing there. But I'll try to make a full sentence. Somebody is said to have free will if he has the capability to act according his own wishes and beliefs. There are many variations: - Somebody is said to have free will if he can do what he wants. - Somebody is said to have free will if his actions are caused by his own wishes and beliefs. - Somebody is said to have free will if his actions are not coerced by somebody else. It is important to see what I don't say, but where my strongest opponents here keep opposing to when they argue with me: I do not say: 1. Free will is uncaused. 2. Free will means that natural causes are overruled. 3. Wishes and beliefs are not determined. 4. Every action that is according the will of somebody is a conscious action. My point is that above naturalistic concept of free will can bear our practices of assigning responsibility, of praising, rewarding, blaming, judging, and punishing. If a concept of free will can bear that load, then it is justified to call it free will. VYAZMA and Lois are sticking to the 'metaphysical track' that free will is impossible in a determined universe. They deny one or more points of 1 - 4 but simply don't see that these are not elements of my definition.
67
The two things I'm sensing… at the root of all that talk, and listening to Clark, I sensed some sub-conscious resentment that we can't influence the past fueling this.
Well the thing is circumstances beyond our control would have had to have been different for us to have done otherwise. We are merely fortunate or unfortunate that they were not. This ought to be taken into account when judging each other. Most people deny this in error and Tom Clark and I and many others see this as harmful.
68
He just drew the short straw since if circumstance beyond his control had been appropriately different he wouldn't have done it and if circumstances beyond my control had been appropriately different I would have. There but for circumstances go I.
Doesn't this assume we have NO control over "circumstances" ? It depends what you mean by that. As you've spotted a lot of this is semantics. The fact is for any of us to have done other than we did our distant past would have had to have been different, assuming determinism. Clearly it just is a matter of our good or bad fortune what our distant past was. It's important to be clear on this, you may want to go on to question assuming determinism, but the first thing to do is to be clear on the sense of sheer luck I'm talking about. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I believe it would make more sense to start out with the concept of "who we are" rather than "done" in describing our connection to the past? After nearly six decades of introspection and observing my life play out, I developed a deep appreciate for the intimate links to the past generations that brought me here. They have formed me physically and psychologically, even spiritually. This deep curiosity and introspection that has possessed me from my first memories, isn't anything I created - but it was (to use biblical language) the talent that was given to me, for me to develop. I was further blessed fit healthy body - but if I'd not given it much though and not made some very deliberate decisions as a young man about my attitude towards food and how much of it I was going to shove into my body, I would not be fit now. That personal resolve was driven by observations and events and reading/learning and conversations with individuals. So is my current remaining fitness, because of those things, or because of what I choose to do with those varied influence. ================ Let me try to approach this from another angle. At about 3/4yrs I and my two sisters were in the garden with our Grandmother, she'd brought us into here arbor to trim our finger nails, and she explained that it was important to put the nail parings into the garden because it would help feed the plants. Those words smacked me in the brain, and I was off imagining cycle nutrition between me and vegetable that I ate (she also had a huge garden that we spent much time during summer visits so my parents could get in person vacation now and then so we knew the feel of dirt under the fingernails ;-) ). I spent my life wondering about why those words were so significant and really impact attitudes and attractions. oh gosh so much to say on this topic, so easily to slip into an endless spiral of regressing determining factors…. but I am forced to brake off this conversation yet again, because I'm empathetic, and someone needs a little help, and though I so want to stay at home wrestling with this another other starving projects waiting for me. Guess at the gut of this my rejection of the term "determining" - influencing Funny that, I just thought of another nebulous idea I play with "spiritual/psychological gravity" as a mechanism for synchronicity, since I don't believe in pure chance either - after witnessing the incredible pearl string of fortuitous "coincidences" that led to major adventures and growing experience….. but I must run :-/ forgive the inevitable typos and probably hideous grammar I usually have the freedom to reread and edit - but I'm forced.. determined :coolsmile: not to be able to do so this morning cheers, happy weekend all
69

… usually I TAKE the freedom… :smirk:

Alrightie, that didn't take too long, now let's see if I can make any sense to any of you folks. . .
70
This may seem redundant to you, but please repeat your definition of free will.
Yeah, because it was already standing there. But I'll try to make a full sentence. Somebody is said to have free will if he has the capability to act according his own wishes and beliefs. There are many variations: - Somebody is said to have free will if he can do what he wants. - Somebody is said to have free will if his actions are caused by his own wishes and beliefs. - Somebody is said to have free will if his actions are not coerced by somebody else. It is important to see what I don't say, but where my strongest opponents here keep opposing to when they argue with me: I do not say: 1. Free will is uncaused. 2. Free will means that natural causes are overruled. 3. Wishes and beliefs are not determined. 4. Every action that is according the will of somebody is a conscious action. My point is that above naturalistic concept of free will can bear our practices of assigning responsibility, of praising, rewarding, blaming, judging, and punishing. If a concept of free will can bear that load, then it is justified to call it free will. VYAZMA and Lois are sticking to the 'metaphysical track' that free will is impossible in a determined universe. They deny one or more points of 1 - 4 but simply don't see that these are not elements of my definition. GdB, it may be irritating but I get more out of you every time. :) thanks In fact, I'm finally getting somewhere with trying to understand what you all are talking about, and enabling me to better appreciate
http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm The naturalist doesn't suppose human beings, complex and multi-talented though they are, transcend causal laws and explanations in their behavior. The naturalist view is therefore directly at odds with the widespread culturally-transmitted assumption in the West that human agents have supernatural souls with contra-causal free will. Souls are causally privileged over their surroundings, little first causes, little gods: each of us has the power to have done otherwise in the exact situation in which we didn't do otherwise. Since this assumption expresses itself in our concepts of blame, credit, responsibility, self-worth and deservingness, to challenge it has all sorts of ramifications, personal, social and political.
http://www.naturalism.org/determinism.htm For us humans it’s the fertilized zygote, derived from Mom and Dad, conceived within a biological and social environment {seems to me this is too shallow to be of much use - that long stream of evolution that preceded us needs to be consciously incorporated into our understanding of the "self"}. Once the process of being a person is underway, the accumulated internal neural resources shaped by nature and nurture eventually play a big role in modulating how we are affected by experience. But this undeniably active, self-modulating self, a powerful causal influence in its own right, is all traceable back to non-self factors {Wait a moment, we exert a powerful causal influence, that effects factors that feedback to us. If I influence situations that are then deterministic in my life and future - isn't that a valuable exercise of free will? } – it isn’t literally self-creating in a way that owes itself to my choices.{When we live in a universe where nothing is immune from outside influence what good is such a statement? It informs nothing, imho - What does it inform?} It owes everything, ultimately, to outside influences, including its self-modifying capacities. So it is with all life, and with every composite thing in nature, as far as we know. Everything is a function of, and participates in, the causal web; we are no exceptions. {Why does being a participant in a huge causal web negate free will?}
71
Determinism is the idea that our decisions are determined by factors we are unaware of--genes, environment and experience--which we have no conscious control over, that we can't consciously override those factors--even if we are sure we can, and that "free will" as an overriding force doesn't exist. We all like to think it does exist and we act as if does but it has been proven over and over again that it does not, that it cannot. Lois
{Where does all this leave the person who believes free will is the exercise of our influence over deterministic factors}
Because as I see it free will is the ability to overrule our determining factors. Either we can do it or we can't. I see no other meaning. You are right, since I can't accept any other meaning, we can hardly debate further. {"overruled" = the dam builder that thinks he's controlled the river - to me free will is all about influencing those determining factors} Does the overriding free will happen under all circumstances or just under certain ones? Are there certain determining factors that can be overruled and certain ones that cannot? {sticking to the "overrule/override" definition ends this discussion. You win, I can't "override" who I am or the situation I find myself in. } How does one know which ones can be and which ones cannot be overruled? {Well, that's the entire challenge of our ultimately "meaningless" lives, isn't it. In fact, imho, this is where Jesus stepped onto the stage to help out folks with this challenge, or at least give them something simpler to pursue.} How can you be sure that when one of your definitions of free will is in force and that it isn't actually being driven by your determining factors but you are unconscious of it? {You can't, that's the dynamic, it's for us to figure it out best we can as we get to know ourselves and the world around us better.} Do you think you are consciously aware of your determining factors to the point that you can consciously overrule them? {if one focuses on them, is honest with oneself and the world around one, one can learn to recognize our various impulses influence them to a great extent, so much so that to an outsider it might well look like "overruling" though, it's more subtle than that. But, then the test for this, is the impossible turning back of time to repeat the exact same situation. Lois let me know when the results come in. } Which part of the mind can separate itself from unconscious determining factors and override them? Do we have two or more minds, completely separate from each other? {All this seems so incredibly over simplified, what about the deep connections between our bodies and minds? And our bodies in the world around it? Every action brings a reaction, those reactions imprint on the body… and the mind, thus influencing future actions.} Do we have more than one mind? If so, are they completely independent from one another, one or some of them controlled by determining factors we are not conscious of and one or some of them not? {I can only speak for myself. Of course I have more than one mind, along with more than one physical impulse, I dare say I even have more than one priority in my life, creating constant tension and conflict, which is not a bad thing and makes life interesting. To me free will is about modulating my modes and impulses into behavior that produces desired outcomes (mind you, striving for goals doesn't necessarily mean achieving them)}
=============
As for mood, yes it does affect us. But where does that mood originate from? Did we will it into existence? Or did it come from factors beyond our control and knowledge. I don't think we can have a "little bit" of free will. We either have it or we don't. IMO, we don't. Lois
Are you actually saying you don't have "any control" over your mode? Seems to me science is full of people presenting "all or nothing" suppositions, that further research inevitably shows to be too simplistic. Seems to me that approach is shutting out a lot of learning and understanding that folks are currently blind to.
72
Determinism is the idea that our decisions are determined by factors we are unaware of--genes, environment and experience--which we have no conscious control over, that we can't consciously override those factors--even if we are sure we can, and that "free will" as an overriding force doesn't exist. We all like to think it does exist and we act as if does but it has been proven over and over again that it does not, that it cannot. Lois
{Where does all this leave the person who believes free will is the exercise of our influence over deterministic factors} . I leaves that person in the irrational beliefs category. He or she has lots of company. Irrational beliefss love company. Lois
73
Determinism is the idea that our decisions are determined by factors we are unaware of--genes, environment and experience--which we have no conscious control over, that we can't consciously override those factors--even if we are sure we can, and that "free will" as an overriding force doesn't exist. We all like to think it does exist and we act as if does but it has been proven over and over again that it does not, that it cannot. Lois
{Where does all this leave the person who believes free will is the exercise of our influence over deterministic factors} . I leaves that person in the irrational beliefs category. He or she has lots of company. Irrational beliefss love company. Lois Glib don't suit you. Here you are answering your own question - not mine.
74
Determinism is the idea that our decisions are determined by factors we are unaware of--genes, environment and experience--which we have no conscious control over, that we can't consciously override those factors--even if we are sure we can, and that "free will" as an overriding force doesn't exist. We all like to think it does exist and we act as if does but it has been proven over and over again that it does not, that it cannot. Lois
{Where does all this leave the person who believes free will is the exercise of our influence over deterministic factors} . I leaves that person in the irrational beliefs category. He or she has lots of company. Irrational beliefss love company. Lois Glib don't suit you. Here you are answering your own question - not mine. Sometimes it's easier to do that. ;) Can you restate your question in one sentence or in one very short paragraph? Lois
75
I believe it would make more sense to start out with the concept of "who we are" rather than "done" in describing our connection to the past?
First things first. You need to be clear about what LFW is and the problem determinism is for it. The best way to do that is to think what would be true if determinism were true. That is why I say start by assuming determinism.
but if I'd not given it much though and not made some very deliberate decisions as a young man about my attitude towards food and how much of it I was going to shove into my body, I would not be fit now. That personal resolve was driven by observations and events and reading/learning and conversations with individuals. So is my current remaining fitness, because of those things, or because of what I choose to do with those varied influence.
Quite right. But the important point is those choices were controlled by circumstances beyond your control. To be clear what that means I put it like this: If your distant past had been appropriately different you would have made less healthy choices and be unhealthy now. You see if you want to deny the sense of sheer luck I'm talking about really you are affirming LFW, like almost everybody. It would be no surprise it's the default position.
Let me try to approach this from another angle.
No, sorry :-) This is a simple subject. Stick to the problem determinism is for LFW, firmly get that and then see how a different angle helps.
76
forgive the inevitable typos and probably hideous grammar I usually have the freedom to reread and edit - but I'm forced.. determined :coolsmile: not to be able to do so this morning
So this is a little joke I imagine. But it's instructive, what you are doing is talking about a restriction of free will as GdB defines, so the subject has moved from LFW to CFW. So you aren't free because you aren't free to do what you want because there are other more pressing things that you 'have to' do.
cheers, happy weekend all
And you :-)
77
{Where does all this leave the person who believes free will is the exercise of our influence over deterministic factors} I leaves that person in the irrational beliefs category. He or she has lots of company. Irrational beliefs love company. Lois
If you have no influence over your determining factors your nothing but a machine. Mind you there is a difference between "influencing" and "controlling".
Living creature who are machines and are determined in 100% of their reactions no differently than their chemical reaction will be when we are rotting in the ground.
Right the complexity of human anatomy and human life is no different than a chemical reaction. Like that's going to help anyone understand anything.
78
forgive the inevitable typos and probably hideous grammar I usually have the freedom to reread and edit - but I'm forced.. determined :coolsmile: not to be able to do so this morning
So this is a little joke I imagine. But it's instructive, what you are doing is talking about a restriction of free will as GdB defines, so the subject has moved from LFW to CFW. So you aren't free because you aren't free to do what you want because there are other more pressing things that you 'have to' do.
cheers, happy weekend all
And you :-) More like an irony, an example of appreciation for the dynamic situation we exist in. But, telling me I had no choice but to help out the neighbor, leaves me with nothing - since I could have also declined and rationalized that just as well as my going over and doing a quick fix-it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to his own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."[4] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism. This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination.
Trying to follow all this is like trying to make sense out of a Pollock painting, and it's time for me to walk away from this discussion before I start ranting about word diarrhea again. Suffice it to say this is what I'm left with. I have "influence" on my determining factors… Determining factors are infinite and constantly in flux… thus "if everything were exactly the same, you couldn't have done differently" seem to me a ridiculous tenet to rely on Thank you all for your time, patience and helping me to at least understand the gross, very gross indeed, outlines of this example of the human mind in action. I think I'll go back to good old real science and folks such as Dr. Damasio (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17445/) who does make sense to me and who provides valuable insights to incorporate into my appreciation of myself and how I interact with this world around me.
79
More like an irony, an example of appreciation for the dynamic situation we exist in.
No irony.
But, telling me I had no choice but to help out the neighbor, leaves me with nothing - since I could have also declined and rationalized that just as well as my going over and doing a quick fix-it.
Yes you could have but so could a slave decline to work for his master. Still we don't want to say the slave works freely. If asked the slave would say he 'couldn't do what he wanted', he 'had to work'. Of course there is a sense in which the slave could have worked, but we understand what he means by couldn't (couldn't without paying a penalty imposed by his master). And we don't want the slave master to get away with saying 'he doesn't have to work he's freely choosing to do so', since he could decline. In your example you couldn't check your post without delaying helping your neighbour. You didn't want to delay helping your neighbour and you didn't want to post without checking your post. So you see you were in a position in which you couldn't do what you wanted, since choosing to avoid both problems was impossible and yet that was what you wanted.
thus "if everything were exactly the same, you couldn't have done differently" seem to me a ridiculous tenet to rely on
It's a simple model that should be assumed for practical purposes, so no it's not ridiculous.
Thank you all for your time, patience and helping me to at least understand the gross, very gross indeed, outlines of this example of the human mind in action.
The point is to see what would be the case if the 'gross' example were true. Then we can move on from there if you wish.
80
If you have no influence over your determining factors your nothing but a machine.
I wonder what you mean by 'no influence over your determining factors'? An example might help. And why couldn't a machine be designed to have influence over it's determining factors?